Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
I've seen Massawyrm trading on Bartertown and wondered if it was the same one from AICN - now it looks to me like they're one and the same.
Man, I wish there was a real Black Library where I could get a Black Library Card and take out Black Library Books without having to buy them. Of course, late fees would be your soul. But it would be worth it. - InquisitorMack
skyth wrote:Sorry, after the first ranting bit about the 'right' way to play the game, there is no point in continuing to read the review.
Seriously, if ranting about something like that prevents you from reading the entire thing, then 90% of the internet is closed to you - including most of the posts on Dakka...
Man, I wish there was a real Black Library where I could get a Black Library Card and take out Black Library Books without having to buy them. Of course, late fees would be your soul. But it would be worth it. - InquisitorMack
Let’s face it, the reason 40k players have the reputation they do is not because of the community, but because of the over competitive douchenozzles who bend, break or shatter the conventions of fair play just to get a leg up for the free poo GW gives out for every sanctioned tournament. And if there’s a way to squeeze an extra ounce of advantage out of the game, these frackwit butthats will take it.*
* Edited for kiddie eyeballs
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2008/07/09 00:45:56
skyth wrote:Sorry, after the first ranting bit about the 'right' way to play the game, there is no point in continuing to read the review.
I read the bit quoted by Necros, and that's enough for me to avoid it.
Unless you're Lewis Black, Dennis Leary, or George Carlin (god rest his smutty soul), it's not funny. And that's *before* you get to the slanted perspective on why we need clear rules.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2008/07/09 00:53:20
OT, but if you can't handle the language in that posting, please don't read anything else on AICN. And why on earth are those the only three people that can swear and be funny?!
Seemed like a decent review. I could see Massawyrm possibly being touted as a fanboy, but I think his comment about the reaction to their rules is pretty spot on.
GamesWorkshop wrote: And I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids!
My objection had nothing to do with the language, but rather the general idea that there is one 'right' way to play...Use lots of Troops and playing by the rules is a bad thing, and if you don't play the way I think you should play, you are a bad person and I will call you names.
If they are starting from that perspective, then any review they do is meaningless
skyth wrote:If they are starting from that perspective, then any review they do is meaningless. . .
. . .to you (you should add).
As with any review, be it for books, movies, TV, games, etc. If you don't agree with the base ideals of the reviewer the review isn't going to be of any use to you, but that doesn't mean the review isn't useful to others who may be more sympathetic to the reviewer's ideals.
I found the review pretty funny myself. The part about "maximizing your units that are obscured while minimizing those of your enemy" was rather useless, though. If you're using your own units for cover, avoiding giving the enemy cover from said unit is impossible. I don't know what "magic" they are suggesting.
I'm not the least bit surprised that some Dakka kiddies ran away with bleeding eyes... :S ::prepares to be mobbed by carebears and rainbows::
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2008/07/09 02:33:35
If he were a professional, I would agree with this sentiment, but then if they were a professional they would have written it differently. Like just about anything else AICN does it's just some spank spanking 'imself and I'm not that interested and I don't have to "agree to disagree". Just having an opinion doesn't mean much.
There are many film reviewers I don't agree with on films, but I also know where they are coming from and respect their opinion, even if don't agree. Even so they are useful to me in disagreement. There is no respect here and none is given. Just because some yahoo can post on the internet doesn't give them free credentials or the capacity to be considered serious or to be taken seriously. If your idea of a reviewer is someone with internet access and/or a webcam, more power to you, but it doesn't mean we all feel that way.
Edit: I should point out that I'm not saying these can't be useful either, but they need to be approached in a certain way. If you know the person that makes a world of difference as well, as then you have a greater basis to ground their sentiments on and evaluate it from.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2008/07/09 02:48:08
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
Mr. Massawyrm and I had some run ins on the "official" Rackham forums at times (he's a bit of a company man), but in the end, I've always found him to be more or less level-headed.
***
Interesting to note that we're once again being told that the game is now "even faster and bloodier than ever before!!!".
Pretty sure say by 7th? the game we be so fast and bloody, we probably won't even have to bother playing at all...
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2008/07/09 04:53:29
The review was rambling, swinging from release details and audience response to a summary of the rules changes, then into a rant against competitive players, a bit extolling the virtues of BOLS, then back into the rules changes, then more detail on future releases. The end result of all this is that real meat of the review, the effect of the changes in actual play, got pretty short shrift.
Then there’s the issue with part of the review being written by a different guy, but the article not making that particularly clear. First time I read through I didn’t realise the rules summary was actually written by a separate person. Second time I read the article I wondered why anything other than Big Red’s comments were included.
I don’t really disagree with the reviewer’s approach, and I like reading amateur reviews. But amateur reviews still have standards, yeah?
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
I rather doubt the 5th ed starter set will retail for 59.99 like he says. Also not a fan of the ranting.
And God said unto Abraham, "Take this mighty bolter, my son, and smite thy enemies from afar. Fear not, Emperor protects..er, I mean, well, youknowwhatImean."
Ahtman wrote:I thought it was already known that it was $59.99.
If that's true then I'm incredibly bewildered. Last I heard it was rumored to go for 80-90. At 60, GW will most likely have to release a new Fantasy starter set with more crap as well to compensate, because if little Jimmy walks into a GW store and sees his two options (haha LOTR doesn't count), at pretty much the same price, guess which platform is slowly going to dissappear (or should I say, gain LOTR status )
And God said unto Abraham, "Take this mighty bolter, my son, and smite thy enemies from afar. Fear not, Emperor protects..er, I mean, well, youknowwhatImean."
I've heard $60 USD. No way in hell I'm paying 80-90 for a starter set. I'll go and get the mini rulebook on ebay for $10 then, really don't want the models, but would be a steal for $60.
10 Orks - 22
Warboss - 17
Nobz - 45
3 Death Koptaz (Lets use the bike price) - 35
So...at 90 dollars even, you're getting over half off on miniatures! And then you even get rules and dice too! Booyah you cheapskates! This is actually a good deal from GW (Maybe their best deal ever) any way you slice it as long as it is less than 100 bucks.
Veriamp wrote:I have emerged from my lurking to say one thing. When Mat taught the Necrons to feel, he taught me to love.
Did so few actually read the 4th edition rulebook?
"It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the seed of Arabica that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion."
skyth wrote:If they are starting from that perspective, then any review they do is meaningless. . .
. . .to you (you should add).
As with any review, be it for books, movies, TV, games, etc. If you don't agree with the base ideals of the reviewer the review isn't going to be of any use to you, but that doesn't mean the review isn't useful to others who may be more sympathetic to the reviewer's ideals.
It is entirely possible to write a review which not everyone will agree with, and do so in a manner that even those who disagree will find interesting/discussion-provoking. Contrast with this, where I get the impression that at least part of the intent is to send those with contrary viewpoints elsewhere.
I guess I believe that, while a review need not be impartial, it should at least refrain from being insulting to a portion of the likely audience.
(But this is why I find sites like Rotten Tomatoes to be so useful - metareviewing spares me the word choice of so many "reviewers," while still giving a snapshot of the gestalt.)>
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2008/07/09 18:28:46
It's a loss leader for GW. A sale price of $59.99 makes perfect sense.
My friend and I split the cost of the 50 dollar 2nd edition boxed set in 1995. We knew nothing about it other than the fact that the models looked cool and the game was "sort of like Battletech." We've spent thousands on GW stuff since then. I'd say they came out ahead on that one.
ColonelEllios wrote:I'm not the least bit surprised that some Dakka kiddies ran away with bleeding eyes... :S ::prepares to be mobbed by carebears and rainbows::
Brian P wrote:It's a loss leader for GW. A sale price of $59.99 makes perfect sense.
My friend and I split the cost of the 50 dollar 2nd edition boxed set in 1995. We knew nothing about it other than the fact that the models looked cool and the game was "sort of like Battletech." We've spent thousands on GW stuff since then. I'd say they came out ahead on that one.
)
